![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 24 to 48 of 62. Go back in thread:
Posted by LegWarmers on April 6, 2006, at 18:06:09
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies? » LegWarmers, posted by gardenergirl on April 6, 2006, at 14:09:32
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2006, at 3:55:16
In reply to Re: Dr Bob? About the blocking policies?, posted by Phillipa on April 6, 2006, at 12:33:08
> Have you ever considered reducing the block lengths? ... maybe changing them all to one week, with a few exceptions that would be considerably longer? (I'm actually thinking lifetime bans...)
>
> RacerThis is an important issue, but I don't think there's an easy answer. For one thing, I think some situations are in-between...
> I don't know what the intended purpose is, but if it's to modify behavior, I think that blocks beyond a few weeks max gets into a question of diminshing returns.
>
> If it's to protect the community, well...I suppose you could go on the premise that each "infraction" contributes an additive amount of potential harm, and so increased protection by blocking longer could conceivably be warranted. I wouldn't agree with that reasoning, however.
>
> ggWhy wouldn't you agree? I think I see it as both...
What if block lengths could decrease as well as increase? The duration of a block is based on the duration of the previous block. If it's been a while since the previous block, maybe it could be based on a shorter period of time?
For example, say a poster is blocked for 3 weeks, returns, and the next day posts something uncivil. The standard procedure would be to double the 3 weeks and block them for 6 weeks. If, however, they follow the guidelines for a while before being blocked again, it could be 3 - 1 = 2 weeks that's doubled, and they'd be blocked for 4 weeks.
How does that sound? The question, of course, would be how long "a while" should be...
--
> If a poster is blocked. And two people can't post from the same computer. While the person is blocked can the other person post from that computer while the other is blocked. That way only one person is posting from that computer during the block?
>
> PhillipaIf either of them were blocked, the other would be, too:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/614125.html
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 8:36:57
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2006, at 3:55:16
Isn't the cooling off block now in effect? So that if someone has followed the rules for (insert number of months here) and the civility guideline breach wasn't incredibly egregious, they could be blocked for one week no matter how long they've previously been blocked for.
Allowing someone to make a bad choice every now and again without remembering every past bad choice (or lack of knowledge) they ever made seems like good administrating (just like parenting). Who wants to hear they're grounded for a month, because in third grade they snuck out their window to meet with friends when they were told to study.
On the other hand, ignoring the fact that they snuck out last night, and last week, and ten days ago seems unwise as well.
If I were blocking king, this would be my choice.
1) I agree with Dr. Bob that if someone's blocked, comes back, and is soon in violation of the civility guidelines for similar infractions, the block should be doubled. If a post is particularly uncivil to another poster, or Dr. Bob, the block should be doubled or tripled as now.
2) Each time a poster posts while blocked, the block should be doubled, and not capped at one year.
3) If someone is blocked for one thing, then later commits a completely different violation, everything starts over at PBC. So Dr. Bob could add a column to his spreadsheet so that Poster X (posting an illegal source of nonprescribed drugs) is on a different line than Poster X (uncivil to another poster) or Poster X (posting to someone who has requested a DNP) or Poster X (violating Faith or Politics guidelines).
4) Depending on circumstances, if someone clearly doesn't understand their PBC, makes an effort to reply that would ordinarily get them a block, but again, clearly doesn't understand what they've done wrong, a deputy (because Dr. Bob probably doesn't have time for this) or fellow poster with knowledge of the topic can suggest they rephrase, with a reasonably detailed explanation of what would be an allowable rephrasing. I think a lot of anger comes when people don't understand why what they've done wrong is in violation of civility guidelines, or how to phrase an I statement.
5) As now, there could be judgement applied by Dr. Bob. So that something could fall in teh middle. No doubling, a reduction, or anything else that seems appropriate under the circumstances. Only for a lesser block, not a greater block.
6) The Please be Sensitive guidelines should be beefed up a bit for those very very few posters who avoid making technical fouls but appear to somehow arouse in others the impulse to commit technical fouls. So that a new rule wouldn't have to be created each time, but a more general "Please be sensitive to the fact that this is causing a great deal of distress." can be instituted. Maybe along with alternative suggestions.
7) More deputy and fellow poster (and administrator) warnings on what look to be heated threads. After such warnings, people would post at their own risk, and PBC's and blocks would be based on the fact that a warning has been given.
8) Additions to the standard language on those warnings, and on PBC's and posts that are reactive in nature, that posts be reported on Admin (with only a single line URL and a "Please review this") or by emailing deputies and/or Dr. Bob. And that if one chooses to reply, one should be very very careful on wording.
8) I don't think that every PBC or block needs a committee meeting, but perhaps an open minded discussion of longer blocks could be addressed by committee.
9) If shorter blocks are given, it might be a good idea to briefly give the reason. e.g. This was a new infraction, or this falls under the guidelines for a cooling off block because there hasn't been any infractions for xx months.
10) New posters should have added to their PBC's the consequences of further rule infractions, or a very specific link to the FAQ on that. This site is unusual, and most sites I post at have major rules and consequences clearly stated on the opening page. I realize Babble doesn't have an opening page, but still...
I know it seems complicated when written out like that. But it also seems to be based on common sense factors. IMHO, longer blocks should be reserved for situations where the poster clearly isn't making an effort to comply with the rules, or the spirit of the rules or where shorter blocks haven't had the desired effect.
But on the other hand, longer blocks *are* appropriate for those circumstances. Even if it's just for repeatedly saying *ss without blocking out the a. Because it's Dr. Bob's site, and he has the right to make the rules, since he has the responsibility and the ownership. And he has a right to expect that we make an effort to comply with them, if we choose to post here.
Or at least that's my take on it.
Posted by greywolf on April 11, 2006, at 10:26:45
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 8:36:57
This is all so easy to resolve. Dr. Bob could hire an agency to develop a training program to teach the mods how to employ the blocking formulas, then he could outsource the mod work to call centers in India.
Works for me.
> Isn't the cooling off block now in effect? So that if someone has followed the rules for (insert number of months here) and the civility guideline breach wasn't incredibly egregious, they could be blocked for one week no matter how long they've previously been blocked for.
>
> Allowing someone to make a bad choice every now and again without remembering every past bad choice (or lack of knowledge) they ever made seems like good administrating (just like parenting). Who wants to hear they're grounded for a month, because in third grade they snuck out their window to meet with friends when they were told to study.
>
> On the other hand, ignoring the fact that they snuck out last night, and last week, and ten days ago seems unwise as well.
>
> If I were blocking king, this would be my choice.
>
> 1) I agree with Dr. Bob that if someone's blocked, comes back, and is soon in violation of the civility guidelines for similar infractions, the block should be doubled. If a post is particularly uncivil to another poster, or Dr. Bob, the block should be doubled or tripled as now.
>
> 2) Each time a poster posts while blocked, the block should be doubled, and not capped at one year.
>
> 3) If someone is blocked for one thing, then later commits a completely different violation, everything starts over at PBC. So Dr. Bob could add a column to his spreadsheet so that Poster X (posting an illegal source of nonprescribed drugs) is on a different line than Poster X (uncivil to another poster) or Poster X (posting to someone who has requested a DNP) or Poster X (violating Faith or Politics guidelines).
>
> 4) Depending on circumstances, if someone clearly doesn't understand their PBC, makes an effort to reply that would ordinarily get them a block, but again, clearly doesn't understand what they've done wrong, a deputy (because Dr. Bob probably doesn't have time for this) or fellow poster with knowledge of the topic can suggest they rephrase, with a reasonably detailed explanation of what would be an allowable rephrasing. I think a lot of anger comes when people don't understand why what they've done wrong is in violation of civility guidelines, or how to phrase an I statement.
>
> 5) As now, there could be judgement applied by Dr. Bob. So that something could fall in teh middle. No doubling, a reduction, or anything else that seems appropriate under the circumstances. Only for a lesser block, not a greater block.
>
> 6) The Please be Sensitive guidelines should be beefed up a bit for those very very few posters who avoid making technical fouls but appear to somehow arouse in others the impulse to commit technical fouls. So that a new rule wouldn't have to be created each time, but a more general "Please be sensitive to the fact that this is causing a great deal of distress." can be instituted. Maybe along with alternative suggestions.
>
> 7) More deputy and fellow poster (and administrator) warnings on what look to be heated threads. After such warnings, people would post at their own risk, and PBC's and blocks would be based on the fact that a warning has been given.
>
> 8) Additions to the standard language on those warnings, and on PBC's and posts that are reactive in nature, that posts be reported on Admin (with only a single line URL and a "Please review this") or by emailing deputies and/or Dr. Bob. And that if one chooses to reply, one should be very very careful on wording.
>
> 8) I don't think that every PBC or block needs a committee meeting, but perhaps an open minded discussion of longer blocks could be addressed by committee.
>
> 9) If shorter blocks are given, it might be a good idea to briefly give the reason. e.g. This was a new infraction, or this falls under the guidelines for a cooling off block because there hasn't been any infractions for xx months.
>
> 10) New posters should have added to their PBC's the consequences of further rule infractions, or a very specific link to the FAQ on that. This site is unusual, and most sites I post at have major rules and consequences clearly stated on the opening page. I realize Babble doesn't have an opening page, but still...
>
> I know it seems complicated when written out like that. But it also seems to be based on common sense factors. IMHO, longer blocks should be reserved for situations where the poster clearly isn't making an effort to comply with the rules, or the spirit of the rules or where shorter blocks haven't had the desired effect.
>
> But on the other hand, longer blocks *are* appropriate for those circumstances. Even if it's just for repeatedly saying *ss without blocking out the a. Because it's Dr. Bob's site, and he has the right to make the rules, since he has the responsibility and the ownership. And he has a right to expect that we make an effort to comply with them, if we choose to post here.
>
> Or at least that's my take on it.
Posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 15:29:33
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by greywolf on April 11, 2006, at 10:26:45
Well, perhaps at least Dr. Bob will find something in my ideas to consider.
Posted by greywolf on April 11, 2006, at 15:40:27
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 15:29:33
> Well, perhaps at least Dr. Bob will find something in my ideas to consider.
I was just kidding around, Dinah. I thought your ideas were great.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 11, 2006, at 15:51:38
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 15:29:33
I can tell you put a lot of thought into your ideas, and I think there are good things to consider there.
The logistics, however, sort of makes my head hurt. But then again, we never get to see that darned spreadsheet. So perhaps under a plan such as yours, the logistics of determining block length is not something deputies will have to deal with.
I'm glad you posted this.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on April 11, 2006, at 16:02:34
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2006, at 3:55:16
>> > I don't know what the intended purpose is, but if it's to modify behavior, I think that blocks beyond a few weeks max gets into a question of diminshing returns.
> >
> > If it's to protect the community, well...I suppose you could go on the premise that each "infraction" contributes an additive amount of potential harm, and so increased protection by blocking longer could conceivably be warranted. I wouldn't agree with that reasoning, however.
> >
> > gg
>
> Why wouldn't you agree? I think I see it as both...I hesitate to say this, because I'm sure that others' experiences differ widely. But suppose a poster with one PBC used a vulgur word without the asterisk, then negatively characterized another poster's post which was itself uncivil, then quoted uncivil material in their reply to someone, then mistyped and used another vulgar word accidentally. Under the old system, this person would be now be blocked for 16 weeks. Do we really need to be "protected" from this person for 4 months? It's not that simple. I can't imagine that each uncivil post could lead to an equivalent "amount" of harm. Viewing all uncivil posts as additive just seems too simplistic given the complexity of all the factors related to blocks.
>
>> For example, say a poster is blocked for 3 weeks, returns, and the next day posts something uncivil. The standard procedure would be to double the 3 weeks and block them for 6 weeks. If, however, they follow the guidelines for a while before being blocked again, it could be 3 - 1 = 2 weeks that's doubled, and they'd be blocked for 4 weeks.If you feel confident that you could keep track of that and apply it consistently, sounds fine. I have no such confidence in my own abilities to apply a system like this. I think I'd have to ask you to determine block lengths for anyone I would block, unless we have a better way of knowing each poster's "status".
>
> How does that sound? The question, of course, would be how long "a while" should be...True. And I believe we also need to determine that for the cooling off blocks as well?
gg
Posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 16:12:35
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on April 11, 2006, at 15:51:38
That was an issue I thought about addressing, but I wasn't sure how I felt about it. Certainly I don't want to determine block lengths. But it would be nice to know if someone's already been pbc'd or blocked. Now I always have to start with a PBC no matter what unless I specifically remember something, or it's on the same page.
On the other hand, there may be things on there that we're not supposed to be privy to.
I probably made my suggestion too complex. I've been rambly lately so I tried to break it down into small parts. The overall idea is to reduce block lengths in most circumstances, while allowing for longer blocks when circumstances call for it. And maybe to make public what dr. bob probably privately considers. And to try to do something about some situations that aren't covered under any rules, but seem to cause upheaval.
Which maybe is a complex goal.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 11, 2006, at 17:20:52
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2006, at 3:55:16
You found something with a grey area!
>>This is an important issue, but I don't think there's an easy answer. For one thing, I think some situations are in-between...
Posted by AuntieMel on April 11, 2006, at 17:24:59
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 8:36:57
Wonderfully written, as usual.
Posted by special_k on April 11, 2006, at 20:08:25
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 8:36:57
> 1) I agree with Dr. Bob that if someone's blocked, comes back, and is soon in violation of the civility guidelines for similar infractions, the block should be doubled.
though wouldn't there be exceptions to this? IMHO people are blocked to readily for 'borderline' infractions. And people don't really understand what they are doing wrong (over on politics, for instance).
>If a post is particularly uncivil to another poster, or Dr. Bob, the block should be doubled or tripled as now.
sure, I agree with that. though i also think that Dr Bob is more tolerant for infractions against him (as I think he should be) but when those are stirring up the boards as a whole...
> 2) Each time a poster posts while blocked, the block should be doubled, and not capped at one year.what i like about the one year cap... is that some people who post to mental health sites have severe psychiatric conditions. someone who is off their meds might post some pretty shocking posts and they get blocked for that (rightly so IMO) and they might also make a pain of themself with posting while blocked. but one year is a long time in the greater scheme of things. i like to think that nobody, nobody at all is a 'lost cause'. one year sounds like a pretty long time to me... but if we get one poster here in virtue of that rule... just one poster then IMHO it is worth it.
> 3) If someone is blocked for one thing, then later commits a completely different violation, everything starts over at PBC.that would involve classifying offences. i wondered a bit about that before... whether they could be classified. how fine grained do you want the classification to go? an unasterisked *ss and an unasterisked f*ck two seperate offences or two tokens of the same type (swearing without an asterisk)? how about throwing something else into the mix. being blocked for something on has been asked not to do... is that a seperate type? i just mean that that might be more complicated than you think...
>...I think a lot of anger comes when people don't understand why what they've done wrong is in violation of civility guidelines, or how to phrase an I statement.
yes. it is a lot easier to see how things are more civil in hindsight... it is a lot harder to see that ones post is problematic in the first place (and i would only send it on for someone else to check if i thought it might be problematic). that being said... is it my imagination.... or has be been better with the politics board recently in the sense of warning more blocking less and repeating the time rather than doubling it? or maybe it is just that the board is dying out as people are too terrified to post to it...
> 6) The Please be Sensitive guidelines should be beefed up a bit for those very very few posters who avoid making technical fouls but appear to somehow arouse in others the impulse to commit technical fouls. So that a new rule wouldn't have to be created each time, but a more general "Please be sensitive to the fact that this is causing a great deal of distress." can be instituted. Maybe along with alternative suggestions.
really? a lot of people feel pissed off in response to me... it has been suggested i need to radically alter my posting style or get blocked for a very long time... do you really think this kind of situation happens on the boards? i think sometimes people do try and provoke / get people wound up... i do that a bit on politics i'll admit... yup, i do.
IMO other people need to learn to handle their own responses. i'm not attacking accusing putting down (to the best of my knowledge).
i don't know what to say in response to this... except that it will likely lead to MORE blockings...
> IMHO, longer blocks should be reserved for situations where the poster clearly isn't making an effort to comply with the rules, or the spirit of the rules or where shorter blocks haven't had the desired effect.yeah.
> But on the other hand, longer blocks *are* appropriate for those circumstances. Even if it's just for repeatedly saying *ss without blocking out the a.if you have been asked and you persist... sure.
if you don't get it... (for example a lot of people get a warning for that on admin or social or wherever. after a while they discover the wring board and they don't appreciate that you can't swear over there. i think that is an honest mistake...
i still think the majority of block lengths are too harsh.i still think the majority of blocks... one week would be better.
it would be a slap...
but it wouldn't inspire the rage that the present system evokes.
that being said...
yeah i guess some offences do merit longer blocks.
IMHO they would be the exception rather than the rule, however...
Posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 23:16:04
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 16:12:35
Posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 0:26:37
In reply to whatever. forget the whole post. (nm), posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 23:16:04
dinah?
((((dinah))))
you okay?i sorry :-(
don't think we are in a grumpy mood...
er...
i do enjoy hearing what you have to say...
and it was a well thought out post.
i did appreciate it :-)
but you know i very rarely agree - right?sigh.
i sorry :-(
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 12:24:15
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by special_k on April 11, 2006, at 20:08:25
>
>> IMO other people need to learn to handle their own responses. i'm not attacking accusing putting down (to the best of my knowledge).
>
You just said you were sometimes provocative,
you also said that sometimes it's difficult for people when they are going through psychiatric difficulties, I would assume that includes "handling ones own responses"How could you know why some people are hurt by what you say or do? Why do you think it's up to you to decide whether or not they are justified.
I've seen you post about being hurt by things.
Next time maybe I'll push your buttons about them and then when you're at your most upset, I'll tell you that, well, I was just being provocative, I admit it, then I'll tell you that I think you should learn how to handle your response.
WTF??
Why do you talk to others about being charitable?
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 15:02:04
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » special_k, posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 12:24:15
I guess I'll just wait for Henrietta to pop in and give me a piece of her mind..
Posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 18:35:50
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » special_k, posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 12:24:15
Ouch.
When I said I knew I was provokative (mostly over on politics) I was talking about pushing hard on political isses... Like about my belief that everyone has a right to life and their basic needs being met etc.
> >> IMO other people need to learn to handle their own responses. i'm not attacking accusing putting down (to the best of my knowledge).
And I'm not.
> You just said you were sometimes provocative,
Provoking people to THINK
> you also said that sometimes it's difficult for people when they are going through psychiatric difficulties, I would assume that includes "handling ones own responses"
Of course. But one is still responsible for ones own responses...
> How could you know why some people are hurt by what you say or do? Why do you think it's up to you to decide whether or not they are justified.
It isn't about whether they are justified or not (I personally think ALL emotional responses are justified).
I'm just trying to get at the point that if someone can come along to admin and say WAH! Someone posted this to me and I'm so upset and thereby get them blocked... Well... If you like that way of doing things you might like to play at psychcentral. You might be pleased to know they delete around half of my posts because the topics are considered unsuitable...
> I've seen you post about being hurt by things.
> Next time maybe I'll push your buttons about them and then when you're at your most upset, I'll tell you that, well, I was just being provocative, I admit it, then I'll tell you that I think you should learn how to handle your response.You do that Gabbi.
But I'll request you never post to me again.
There is indeed such a thing as being sensitive
Hence
PBSDo you really think I exhibit insensitivity in the way I talk to pepole?
I know someitmes I get carried away... But if they explain that to me then i backtrack - don't I? I apologise when other peoples feelings are hurt (even if i dont see that i've done anything wrong - ie if they have MISINTERPRETED what i said) i'm still sorry they are hurting.
don't i????
WTF
I don't know where this is coming from...
i don't wanna play here anymore :-(
Posted by Bobby on April 12, 2006, at 19:40:02
In reply to Dr Bob? About the blocking policies?, posted by Racer on April 4, 2006, at 19:44:04
Posted by Deneb on April 12, 2006, at 19:46:06
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » gabbi~1, posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 18:35:50
> I'm just trying to get at the point that if someone can come along to admin and say WAH! Someone posted this to me and I'm so upset and thereby get them blocked... Well... If you like that way of doing things you might like to play at psychcentral. You might be pleased to know they delete around half of my posts because the topics are considered unsuitable...
That happened to me too. Over there, I'm not free to post my love for Dr. Bob, and about how I feel hurt over being blocked. People get upset or annoyed and then my threads get locked. :-(
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{special k}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
I don't think there is anything wrong with your posts and the way you express yourself. I really like your style and your logical and analytical thinking.
Deneb*
Posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 20:24:08
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » special_k, posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 12:24:15
Okay... Deep breaths... Clash of the issues or something...
To clarify: It isn't about my thinking that peoples feelings are illegitimate or wrong or anything like that.
It is more that we need to watch out for ourself and let other people watch out for themself. In the sense that I am responsible for my posts, but I am not responsible for your posts.
If I post something nasty to you... Then I am accountable for my post. If you retaliate out of hurt... You are still accountable for your post.
Why?
Becuase the cycle has to stop somewhere.
People can get upset for a variety of reasons...
It is a hard call...
Sometimes people do get blocked for lashing out at others or whatever (as they should IMO).
Sometimes people don't get blocked EVEN THOUGH others feel upset in response to the post?
Why do they feel upset?
A variety of reasons...
Sometimes personal sensitivity (I felt hurt when I read your post to me - but that is my personal sensitivity and I don't think you should be blocked or warned for what I said).
I don't think Deneb should be blocked or warned for talking about suicide or Bob or whatever she wants... So long as she isnt' accusing / attacking another... So long as she isn't joking about death... I don't see why people should be censored because others are upset - becaues others can be upset for a variety of reasons.Someone might feel very upset when they read about SI. With a trigger, without a trigger someone might feel very upset when they read about SI.
Does that mean people should be warned / blocked for posting about SI?
IMO no.
> You just said you were sometimes provocative,
Yes. That was a reference to some things I've been thinking about and posting about on other places on the boards... My conversation with pseudoname (about trying to change people's opinion). My ravings over on writing (that I'm sensitive about sure).
I like to provoke people into thinking and questioning. Yes I do. And sometimes people don't like that. It can be uncomfortable to question ones beliefs / have ones beliefs questioned. But I think it is a worthwhile thing to do... People don't have to read my threads / respond to my threads. I try and do this sensitively. Sometimes I'm not the best at that and I guess when I cross the line I get a PBS or whatever.
But should we go around making sure what we say doesn't lead to anyone feeling upset?
That would involve selling myself. Censoring myself. It would involve me shutting up about the things I most need to talk about.
Whatever.
I'm sorry Gabbi maybe we are talking about different things here.
I'm sensitive abotu the idea that I need a radical personality overhaul to be fit for human company.
Oh yes I am.
But I do appreciate that is my sensitivity... And I don't think people should be warned / blocked for saying they don't much like me or whatever.
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 20:38:20
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 20:24:08
Well, mostly it was when I read that you knew got people wound up that I got really angry.
Whatever, specific to politics maybe, maybe not..
It doesn't matter.
In some ways you are exquisitely sensitive to people. You're a bundle of contradictions. That's a quote, from a book, it was said affectionately in the book, and that's how I meant it.
The apology is hard, because I've read a couple of posts where you said that you that you tend to apologize when you don't mean it.
I agree with your clarification about the responsibility for emotions, yes. And I did misunderstand you because it was put right after you said you sometimes purposely got people wound up. I took it all as one subject.
Thanks for clarifying.
I am posting with P.M.S :D
I'm such a cliche it's embarrassing..
I should have like a little Fisher price babble board, for when I have P.M.S or a head cold.
Then I could just pretend post for a while.
Posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 22:41:52
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » special_k, posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 20:38:20
> Well, mostly it was when I read that you knew got people wound up that I got really angry.
ah. i don't think i ever mean to hurt people. but yeah, provoke people to THINK i do think i try and do that - i don't try to provoke people to ANGER i don't think... sometimes i know people are likely to feel upset... re politics... i guess i think / feel that sometimes a little provoking (to THINK) is good for us (even if it does hurt a little) i don't know... i don't know what to say... but i don't mean to hurt :-( though sometimes when i'm in a state maybe i do a little :-( but then it is something i beat myself up over (really...) but i'm trying not to beat myself up :-( but maybe i should :-( i don't know... hard issue for me, i'm sorry :-(
> Whatever, specific to politics maybe, maybe not..yeah. thinking about civilians who are killed... people living on the streets... people living on welfare... it is hard yes. a little bit of hurt... the potential for lots of innocent lives to be saved... i don't know what to say... if people feel upset / pissed then they tend to tune out anyways...
> In some ways you are exquisitely sensitive to people.
:-)
i try. but yeah in 'some ways' and not so much in others... but i'm trying (maybe i'm very trying) but i am trying...> You're a bundle of contradictions.
yeah. depends what mood / state i'm in... i had a teacher at school who said i reminded her of this poem about the girl with a curl right in the middle of her forehead and when she was good she was really really good and when she was bad she was horrid. she meant that affectionately too... maybe there is some truth to that. :-( i don't know... :-(
> The apology is hard, because I've read a couple of posts where you said that you that you tend to apologize when you don't mean it.no. i mean apologies when i say them. i do. i can't quite remember the post you are talking about...
i think it goes like this...
i do have a tendancy to fall over myself apologising for my own existence (when i'm in a self-depreciatory mood)
when i'm in one of those spaces i'm not sure what i'm apologising for (unless it is my own existence)
i am always sorry when people feel hurt in response to something i've said...
because i really don't mean to hurt.
or if i do mean to hurt just a little bit...
when someone actually does feel hurt
then i feel horrified at what i've done.
but re: what i've said... sometimes i'm not sorry for what i've said. i'm sorry that people had the response they did to what i said. i never meant for them to respond that way. but that doesn't necessarily mean that i think i said anything wrong. that i wish i could take back hwat i said. that i wish they didn't feel upset - sure. but that i wish i'd never said it... sometimes not.if i post about SI and someone is triggered...
i'm very sorry they feel triggered :-(
but i don't necessarily wish i could take back what i said...does this make sense?
but...
probably should be getting back to topic...
YES i think that as blocks are increased for subsequent offences...
blocks should be reduced for periods of good behaivour.and that might be the best we are going to get out of bob for a while...
and there is the danger of posters becoming divided..
or talking about all kinds of other changes that aren't going to be happening any time soon...
so that we will go along like this for a while...
and nothing will change...
and the status quo will be preserved.that is how these conversations tend to go...
people get upset...
eventually it is better for bob to look like he is actually considering some change
(preferably one that posters will be divided on so he will never have to do it)
and the status quo is preserved...
sigh.
Posted by Deneb on April 12, 2006, at 22:57:40
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » gabbi~1, posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 22:41:52
> YES i think that as blocks are increased for subsequent offences...
> blocks should be reduced for periods of good behaivour.I agree. There should be incentives for good behaviour, otherwise some people (like me) can only see year long blocks in their future...be banned. After a year long block subsequent blocks are also year long blocks and that person is as good as banned... No matter if I was civil for 5 years, if one day I made a mistake I would be banned for a year again and I don't think that's right.
Deneb*
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 12, 2006, at 23:49:00
In reply to Re: the blocking policies » gabbi~1, posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 22:41:52
> ah. i don't think i ever mean to hurt people. but yeah, provoke people to THINK i do think i try and do that - i don't try to provoke people to ANGER i don't think... sometimes i know people are likely to feel upset... re politics... i guess i think / feel that sometimes a little provoking (to THINK) is good for us (even if it does hurt a little) i don't know... i don't know what to say...I do see your point, I don't agree. I've never been one to be provoked to think by someone pushing. I've seen people be passionate, and have good points, and changed my mind.
I've seen people be angry, and explain their thoughts in anger, and changed or expanded my thoughts.
I think for me, it's that when the student is ready the teacher appears. The teacher must be chosen.
At least, that's how it is for many, or I think most, unless they are the type who will follow a cult leader just because he's loud enough..I also think, that the people on politics especially do think, and made considered choices, just as yours are. Perhaps not in the way we like, or the way we and I do mean you and I are sure is correct. It doesn't however mean they are not consciously thinking.
I would take it as quite a heavy insult if someone thought they had to provoke me to think. And as human nature is, most likely instead of thinking about the topic at hand, I would look at the person being provocative and make sure they were absolutely consistant, and perfectly thought through themselves.
And as is the case generally what it does is magnify their flaws, you see their own foibles, as many as your own, simply different, it breeds malcontent I think.Providing alternate views, well that's another thing altogether.
but i don't mean to hurt :-( though sometimes when i'm in a state maybe i do a little :-( but then it is something i beat myself up over (really...) but i'm trying not to beat myself up :-( but maybe i should :-( i don't know... hard issue for me, i'm sorry :-(
>No, if you're aware and honestly trying not to that's what we all do, just in different areas.
Don't beat yourself up, and don't say "I'm trying I know I'm REALLY trying"
My mother used to say that to me, and it's a horrible thing to say about anyone, including yourself.
> > Whatever, specific to politics maybe, maybe not..
>
> yeah. thinking about civilians who are killed... people living on the streets... people living on welfare... it is hard yes. a little bit of hurt... the potential for lots of innocent lives to be saved... i don't know what to say... if people feel upset / pissed then they tend to tune out anyways...
>They do, and how many times can it be said, expecting a different answer. Some of those people though, 2 years from now, will read about it, in a different way, and think.. now I know what she was talking about.
Some won't. It's about timing, its about presentation. I think
> > In some ways you are exquisitely sensitive to people.
>
> :-)
> i try. but yeah in 'some ways' and not so much in others... but i'm trying (maybe i'm very trying) but i am trying...
>
> > You're a bundle of contradictions.
>
> yeah. depends what mood / state i'm in... i had a teacher at school who said i reminded her of this poem about the girl with a curl right in the middle of her forehead and when she was good she was really really good and when she was bad she was horrid. she meant that affectionately too... maybe there is some truth to that. :-( i don't know... :-(
>
> > The apology is hard, because I've read a couple of posts where you said that you that you tend to apologize when you don't mean it.
>
> no. i mean apologies when i say them. i do. i can't quite remember the post you are talking about...
>
Oh it was one to Racer on the admin board a while back, when you were talking about Socrates.
I'm glad that got cleared up too.> i think it goes like this...
>>
> if i post about SI and someone is triggered...
> i'm very sorry they feel triggered :-(
> but i don't necessarily wish i could take back what i said...
>
> does this make sense?Yes, that makes perfect sense.
I'm writing like a robot, because I dare not let any emotion free tonight.
Please don't take it as coldness : )
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2006, at 3:36:11
In reply to Re: the blocking policies, posted by special_k on April 12, 2006, at 20:24:08
> Isn't the cooling off block now in effect? So that if someone has followed the rules for (insert number of months here) and the civility guideline breach wasn't incredibly egregious, they could be blocked for one week no matter how long they've previously been blocked for.
Right. But (a) it can get kind of black-and-white, for example, 1 week if it's been more than x months or 1 year if it's been more, and (b) "cooling off" implies they were hotheaded, but that isn't necessarily the case.
> 3) If someone is blocked for one thing, then later commits a completely different violation, everything starts over at PBC. So Dr. Bob could add a column to his spreadsheet so that Poster X (posting an illegal source of nonprescribed drugs) is on a different line than Poster X (uncivil to another poster)
I do kind of do that already. Grouping together, as above, different types of incivility.
> 4) Depending on circumstances, if someone clearly doesn't understand their PBC, makes an effort to reply that would ordinarily get them a block, but again, clearly doesn't understand what they've done wrong, a deputy ... or fellow poster ... can suggest they rephrase
> 9) If shorter blocks are given, it might be a good idea to briefly give the reason.
Maybe it would be good to be explicit about other reasons, too. For example, the extent to which they may have felt provoked, whether they were uncivil in a number of posts at the same time, whether their posts have already been archived, etc.
> 7) More deputy and fellow poster (and administrator) warnings on what look to be heated threads.
I agree, that's a way Babblers can look out for each other.
> 8) Additions to the standard language on those warnings, and on PBC's and posts that are reactive in nature, that posts be reported on Admin (with only a single line URL and a "Please review this") or by emailing deputies and/or Dr. Bob.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean there. Warnings are different than requests for review...
> 8) I don't think that every PBC or block needs a committee meeting, but perhaps an open minded discussion of longer blocks could be addressed by committee.
Sure, that's reasonable.
> 10) New posters should have added to their PBC's the consequences of further rule infractions, or a very specific link to the FAQ on that.
That's a good idea, too. Which I think you've been putting into practice yourself. :-)
> 6) The Please be Sensitive guidelines should be beefed up a bit for those very very few posters who avoid making technical fouls but appear to somehow arouse in others the impulse to commit technical fouls. So that a new rule wouldn't have to be created each time, but a more general "Please be sensitive to the fact that this is causing a great deal of distress." can be instituted.
>
> DinahI like that idea a lot, those are really difficult situations for this community. However: if a number of people foul Poster X, does that necessarily mean it's Poster X who should be asked to modify their behavior?
Also, wouldn't the behavior to modify need to be specified? And if that were a reasonable request, wouldn't it be reasonable to make it a new rule and apply it to everyone? IMO, a new rule is more balanced. Poster X is asked to follow it, and those who commit technical fouls are asked to stop doing so.
--
> This is all so easy to resolve. Dr. Bob could hire an agency to develop a training program to teach the mods how to employ the blocking formulas
>
> greywolfEven better, everyone should understand the formulas! I'm not sure how efficient it is, but there's already a training program: FAQ + Admin. :-)
--
> suppose a poster with one PBC used a vulgur word without the asterisk, then negatively characterized another poster's post which was itself uncivil, then quoted uncivil material in their reply to someone, then mistyped and used another vulgar word accidentally. Under the old system, this person would be now be blocked for 16 weeks. Do we really need to be "protected" from this person for 4 months? It's not that simple. I can't imagine that each uncivil post could lead to an equivalent "amount" of harm. Viewing all uncivil posts as additive just seems too simplistic given the complexity of all the factors related to blocks.
>
> ggBut you'd agree that it would be reasonable for the period of protection for that poster to be longer than that for a poster who posted just one of those posts? It's just how much longer that's the question?
--
> I like to provoke people into thinking and questioning. ... And sometimes people don't like that. ... But I think it is a worthwhile thing to do... ... I try and do this sensitively.
>
> But should we go around making sure what we say doesn't lead to anyone feeling upset?
>
> That would involve selling myself. Censoring myself. It would involve me shutting up about the things I most need to talk about.
>
> I'm sensitive abotu the idea that I need a radical personality overhaul to be fit for human company.
>
> special_kIt's impossible to make sure no one feels upset. At the same time, it can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place. If you're already trying to do that sensitively, aren't you already censoring yourself to some extent? Without having had a radical personality overhaul?
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.